A secret trial, maybe a secret execution...and then the President can have another State-of-the-Union moment like last year's "Let's just say they won't be a problem anymore. Wink, wink."

Posted by: Jaquandor at December 29, 2003 09:14 AM | PERMALINK

Considering that he was OUR S.O.B. long before he became an "Axis of Evil" S.O.B., we should be worried about what he might say, and what he might reveal about how our own foreign policies and covert actions helped create monsters like him & Bin Laden.

Posted by: Terrance at December 29, 2003 09:19 AM | PERMALINK

Absolutely, there are heads of state and other people who benefitted from Saddam Hussein's reign. But not the folks Bush-haters like Kevin Drum assume.

Who received bribes and kick-backs and wealth from Saddam?

Here is my short list: Scott Ritter, French and German officials, and various French and German companies.

Posted by: Kevin Gregory at December 29, 2003 09:21 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, the Bushies really want to protect the reputations of Scott Ritter and the French.

Posted by: Jon Meltzer at December 29, 2003 09:28 AM | PERMALINK

Don't forget Dick "Big Dick" Cheney and his buds at Haliburton. They made a lot of money off Saddam during the sanctions period.

Posted by: jri at December 29, 2003 09:28 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, the Bushies really want to protect the reputations of Scott Ritter and the French.

Heh heh. Gotcha!

Posted by: JP at December 29, 2003 09:29 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin Gregory,

What exactly do you believe Saddam Hussein bribed Scott Ritter to do? To tell the truth?

Posted by: Jon at December 29, 2003 09:29 AM | PERMALINK

What's he going to say that would be so devastating? That he had U.S. support prior to his invasion of Kuwait? That's no big secret. In reality it is the French and Russians who would seem to have the most to fear from any revelations since their involvement with Saddam was far greater than that of the U.S. and it continued even during the sanctions.

I doubt that anyone with any sense would believe a word Saddam says anyway. If anything, a public show trial where dozens, if not hundreds, of witnesses testify to the horrors of his regime would help strengthen support for the war in the U.S. and help boost Bush's re-election chances.

Posted by: Randal Robinson at December 29, 2003 09:32 AM | PERMALINK

>Hell, even Hermann Goering got a public trial.

But Saddam has created decades and decades of torture and oppression the likes of which I think the world has not ever seen before.

Posted by: Dan the Man at December 29, 2003 09:33 AM | PERMALINK

Who wants a secret trial? It's a bit of a cliche, but follow the money.

Scott Ritter bribed? I guess that explains how he became such a wealthy person.

Don't rule out a Jack Ruby for Saddam Hussein, or perhaps a jail suicide.

Posted by: James E. Powell at December 29, 2003 09:35 AM | PERMALINK

Obviously, an open and public trial is best. And I agree with Kevin that I hope that Iyad Alawi doesn't speak for all of the IGC.

However, my biggest concern is that an open trial will degrade into a farce similar to the trial of Milosevic. The Milosevic trial has been going on for 2 years, and is expected to last another 2. 4 years to try someone is ludicrous. It turns justice into a circus.

Posted by: Proper Response at December 29, 2003 09:35 AM | PERMALINK

Dan the Man. You should think before you post, and read before you think.

Posted by: James E. Powell at December 29, 2003 09:38 AM | PERMALINK

It will be very telling to see how the Bush administration responds to the notion of a public trial.

I don't see how they can fail to push for a public trial without putting themselves in a fairly horrible political situation. What are they going to say -- that the revelations of our great Satan, now entirely out of power, is somehow going to affect adversely OUR national security? What dread secrets could or should a die hard enemy possibly know that would do such damage?

Posted by: frankly0 at December 29, 2003 09:47 AM | PERMALINK

Randal Robinson,

You're right -- I can't think of anything in particular that Saddam might mention that would be embarassing to the U.S. On the contrary, I'm sure the U.S. government would be proud to have on the public record that:

X The CIA may have arranged the assassination plot in which Saddam took part in the late fifties
X We planned the 1963 coup and then gave the new government lists of people to be executed, with some of the executions being supervised by Saddam
X We backed the 1968 coup that brought the Baathists and Saddam to power
X We gave Saddam encouragement and then a formal green light, via Saudi Arabia, to invade Iran
X George HW Bush personally encouraged Saddam to step up Iraq's vicious bombing of Iran
X Saudi Arabia paid for Iraq's nuclear program during the eighties, with the knowledge and approval of the U.S.
X Iraq apparently has not had banned weapons since 1991, yet the U.S. fought to maintain sanctions that killed hundred of thousands of people

The only thing that surprises me is that George W Bush hasn't gone over all this history himself in a high-profile public speech, since it makes us look so good.

Posted by: Jon at December 29, 2003 09:47 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum is a "Bush-hater, eh? That must be a vey easy club to join. I think all it requires is that one voted for someone other than G.W.

Scott Ritter? Jesus, come up with another whipping boy, please. It seems Ritter has turned out to be correct, despite all the attempts to smear him. David Kay is the one not looking too smart these days.

As far as the French, I wonder when some hare-brained politician is going to come up with the idea of returning the Statue of Liberty. In Texas we already had a proposal to dig up the bodies of all the Americans buried at Normandy and return them to the U.S. made by one of our illustrious Congress people.

A public trial is the only acceptable means of disposing of Saddam. Whatever the evidence turns out to be, so be it, whether it looks bad for Scott Ritter or the Bushes. A secret trial, especially for "national security" reasons, would look awful.

Posted by: Pug at December 29, 2003 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

Two words: Manuel Noriega.

Even if there is a public trial (which I doubt), the American public will by-and-large ignore the role the US played in creating Hussein. Sad but true.

I would be surprised if Hussein lives long enough for a trial. But then again, I was seriously surprised he was captured alive. We'll see. I will give BushCo a LOT of credit if Hussein is prosecuted honestly and publicly.

Posted by: Tim B. at December 29, 2003 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

Oh know wonder Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser during the Carter administration wanted Saddam's trial to be held at the international court.

Brzezinski: And there is a third thing which we should really mention; namely, how should Saddam be tried? I think there's going to be a strong international consensus that it would be better to have an international court.

There is an international war crimes court dealing with Milosevic, there is an international court dealing with the crimes in Rwanda and so forth in Africa, and I personally think that the Europeans would support an international court and would have more credibility worldwide, including among the Arabs, than a court composed purely of Iraqis who inevitably will be viewed as our agents and engaged essentially in vengeance. And I think our interest is not in whether Saddam hangs, but whether he's condemned historically and politically. And an international court will be a far more effective mechanism for achieving that.

Doesn't Saddam have to answer to all those questions that we Americans have about all THOSE WMD that both Bush and Clinton told us that Saddam had in his possession?

Posted by: Cheryl at December 29, 2003 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

oops that should be: "Oh no wonder"

Posted by: Cheryl at December 29, 2003 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

Doesn't Saddam have to answer to all those questions that we Americans have about all THOSE WMD that both Bush and Clinton told us that Saddam had in his possession?

In my humble opinion, no. I think the Iraqis are the people with the greatest claim. While questions regarding WMDs, and US, French, Russian, ... involvement would make good political theater, I believe it is far less important than what happened to the Iraqis themselves. Next on the list would be the Iranians and the Kuwaitis. Questions such as who shoke hands more often with Saddam - Rumsfield or Chirac, pale in comparison. I understand where others may disagree, but that is my view.

Posted by: Proper Response at December 29, 2003 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

I just spoke with both Scott Ritter and Osama bin laden, and they are both very grateful there won't be a public trail. Ritter doesn't want to disclose the funding of his bitchin' new 5 Series Beamer, and bin laden is terrified people will find out he and Saddam were "more than just friends" during the nineties.

Posted by: Yes Thanks! at December 29, 2003 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

"We don't want him to mention all that on television."

Yes. Yes, we do. In fact, there's no other point in having a trial, is there?

Posted by: Quaker in a Basement at December 29, 2003 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

Wait... if the USA put him in power and the USA says he is evil.... what does that make the US....?

Posted by: Gimli at December 29, 2003 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

I guess Hussein Kamel fled iWaq to tell us he had the NBC weapons destroyed and was then executed for telling lies that might get the sanctions lifted and inspectors pulled out?

Posted by: Snow at December 29, 2003 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

Uh, it may not have occurred to the lefties here, but I doubt that when Alawi says "the names of states and the names of persons to whom he has given bribes and wealth" he means the US and Don Rumsfeld. Far, far more likely he means Yassir Arafat, al Jazeera, Hosni Mubarak, and folks like that. I guess you tend to overlook these people if you think that the only possible country who has ever done anything wrong is the United States.

In any case, a few points:

1. Alawi will likely not be part of the government when the trial occurs.

2. He doesn't speak for the IGC now.

3. He said perfectly clearly that he hasn't talked with anybody about it.

4. Iraqis likely do not have the same judicial traditions that we have, so an off-the-cuff remark like this (again, he said it hasn't been discussed), may just be a product of his traditions rather than ours.

But don't let these points get in the way of any left-wing comments that the US is keeping Saddam's trial secret so that noone will know about Don Rumsfeld's trip to Iraq.

Posted by: Al at December 29, 2003 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

I guess you tend to overlook these people if you think that the only possible country who has ever done anything wrong is the United States.

Jeez, you're right! I had no idea that other "possible countries" did things that are wrong.

Wow.

Kevin - seriously - where do you did these clowns up? And why are they all named "Al"?

Posted by: ryan b at December 29, 2003 01:02 PM | PERMALINK

What the hell is Alawi thinking? Saddam is obviously per se guilty-- so why give him a trial at all? If its about "justice", then just take him out and shoot him, and be done with it. (If the verdict were put to a democratic vote, I'm sure that's what it would be anyway!!!)

Dr. Brzezinski's point is based on something really stupid called international law. What's up with that? If we cared about THAT, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place!!!

OF COURSE an ad hoc "governing council" appointed by the occupying authority of a government that unilaterally invaded another country without provocation will be perceived as "legitimate" by everyone! So, a "secret trial" will be every bit as legitimate as a "not secret trial". So what's the big deal?

Real answer: no trial of any kind. Saddam will just be held in secret detention of some kind until the end of the Bush Adminsitration in either '05 or '09.

Posted by: the talking dog at December 29, 2003 01:31 PM | PERMALINK

Far, far more likely he means Yassir Arafat, al Jazeera

That's right. The IGC will protect Arafat, al Jaz, Ritter and Chirac to the end. Why do we support these terrorists?

Posted by: flatulus at December 29, 2003 01:36 PM | PERMALINK

and what ryan said

Posted by: flatulus at December 29, 2003 01:37 PM | PERMALINK

'and bin laden is terrified people will find out he and Saddam were "more than just friends" during the nineties. '

And this is why the conservatives want a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, it's a war with terror thing.

Posted by: bryan at December 29, 2003 02:29 PM | PERMALINK

Even if there is a public trial (which I doubt), the American public will by-and-large ignore the role the US played in creating Hussein.

The Iraqi public, OTOH, may not -- and Iraq will, even if not nominally under US occupation and not nominally controlled by the US, be almost certainly be run by a US-friendly and US-approved government with close ties to the US supported by a large US military presence at the time of the trial.

Even if no one in America cares, that might be a problem for any Iraqi government that the US is likely to allow to replace the IGC.

Posted by: cmdicely at December 29, 2003 02:45 PM | PERMALINK

Gimli sez: Wait... if the USA put him in power and the USA says he is evil.... what does that make the US....?

I would cut off your head, dwarf, if it stood but a little higher from the ground...

Posted by: Éomer O'Reilly at December 29, 2003 02:46 PM | PERMALINK

...The Iraqi public, OTOH, may not...

I doubt this will be a major issue. The vast majority of Iraqis hate him, and are not likely to believe any of his excuses. Regardless of how true or false they are. Furthermore, while the US does not have clean hands, the hands of others, such as the French and the Russians, are dirtier. And it is too easy for Saddam to blame literally everyone including the UN.

If you read the Arab press, the Arab world is reconsidering their view of Saddam. He has gone from the Arab hero that stood up to the Americans to a brutal dictator that deserved what he got. Many Arab pundits are questioning why they supported Saddam in the first place. Why they considered standing up to the Americans to be more important than the well-being of the Iraqi people.

In the end, anything that Saddam says is unlikely to change anyone's mind. Those who think the US, France or others are culpable, will find the evidence they are looking for. Those who believe Saddam is ultimately responsible for his own actions will ignore his excuses. Considering the "public relations" hole that Saddam has dug for himself, I doubt there will be any long term damage.

Posted by: Proper Response at December 29, 2003 04:26 PM | PERMALINK

Bush will want a public trial to showcase the "success" of the Second Persian Gulf Distraction. However, I can see why the IGC would be less pleased with a public trial: Saddam knows of the skeletons in the closets of some of the IGC membership, not something they'd want to air out during the current Iraqi power struggle.

Posted by: Spyral Pegacyon at December 29, 2003 04:44 PM | PERMALINK

Tim B. took the words right off of my keyboard. At this point, my prediction is based on how a certain corrupt, coke-dealing rapist and CIA asset, known without any affection as "Caro de Pina", was treated. Saddam will not be given any more opportunities to squeal than the man whose capture, accompanied by the unnecessary death and suffering of many "pain in the ass innocent bystanders"*, was achieved through Operation Just Because.

* Quote from "The Godfather", which portrays the sort of organization this administration would emulate were its members smart enough to be truly Machiavellian.

Posted by: Robuzo at December 29, 2003 07:27 PM | PERMALINK

Don't walk behind me, I may not lead. Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend.

Posted by: Boie Pat at March 17, 2004 04:56 PM | PERMALINK

Underestimation is a two-way street.

Posted by: Geyer Laura Talley at May 2, 2004 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

Friendship make prosperity more shining and lessens adversity by dividing and sharing it.

Posted by: Thompson Jason at May 3, 2004 12:17 AM | PERMALINK

God had some serious quality-control problems.

Posted by: Bailey Jake at May 20, 2004 01:53 AM | PERMALINK

You have a pretty nice blog. English is not my native language but it was please to read your site. From Russia with love :)Sincerely yours..

http://female-muscle.healz.com/
http://low-carb-diet.bcure.com/
http://puppy-training.healz.com/

Posted by: Cynthia at June 1, 2004 03:04 PM | PERMALINK

In this grand B movie we call life, there is always a girl.

Posted by: Saposnik Andrea at June 2, 2004 08:33 PM | PERMALINK

hentai hussies - interracial empire - interracial intercourse - white pussy black cocks - amateur porn - bdsm movies - butt machine boys - fresh amateur vids - lesbo prison - men fetish - spunk mouth

Posted by: big naturals at June 30, 2004 07:18 PM | PERMALINK

Please check out the sites about http://www.texas-hold-em-4u.com/ texas hold em http://www.texasholdem-4u.com/ texas hold em http://www.texas-hold-em-555.com/ texas hold em http://www.worldwide-holdem.com/ texas hold em http://www.online-deals24x7.com/ texas hold em http://www.bestdeals-winner.com/ texas hold em http://www.texasholdem777.net/ texas hold em http://www.texas-hold-em-winner.net/ texas hold em http://www.texasholdemsite.net/ texas hold em http://www.playandwin777.com/ texas hold em http://www.blackjack-4u.net/ blackjack http://www.black-jack-4u.net/ blackjack http://www.blackjack-777.net/ blackjack http://www.worldwide-games.net/ blackjack http://www.online-games24x7.com/ blackjack http://www.bestgames-winner.com/ blackjack http://www.blackjack777.net/ blackjack http://www.blackjack-winner.net/ blackjack http://www.blackjacksite.net/ blackjack http://www.playandwinit777.net/ blackjack http://www.tramadol-4u.net/ tramadol http://www.tramadol-24x7.net/ tramadol http://www.tramadol-50-mg.net/ tramadol http://www.worldwide-tramadol.net/ tramadol http://www.online-medications24x7.com/ tramadol http://www.bestonline-medication.com/ tramadol http://www.tramadol90.net/ tramadol http://www.tramadol-pills.net/ tramadol http://www.tramadolsite.net/ tramadol http://www.gethelp24x7.net/ tramadol http://www.onlinepharmacy-4u.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-pharmacy-24x7.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-pharmacy-4u.net/ online pharmacy http://www.worldwide-online-pharmacy.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-shop-24x7.com/ online pharmacy http://www.bestonline-shopping.com/ online pharmacy http://www.onlinepharmacy2004.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-pharmacy-pills-4u.net/ online pharmacy http://www.onlinepharmacysite.net/ online pharmacy http://www.shop24x7.net/ online pharmacy ...

Posted by: online pharmacy at August 10, 2004 02:34 AM | PERMALINK

Best XXX Sites -
Teen Cash -
Gang Bang Squad -
Bang Boat -
Gang Bang -
Milf Rriders -
Oral Sex -
Anal Sex -
Group Sex -
Cum Shot -
Free Porn -
Free Sex

Posted by: Sano at August 10, 2004 03:27 AM | PERMALINK

Best XXX Sites -
Teen Cash -
Gang Bang Squad -
Bang Boat -
Gang Bang -
Milf Rriders -
Oral Sex -
Anal Sex -
Group Sex -
Cum Shot -
Free Porn -
Free Sex

Posted by: Den at August 10, 2004 04:41 AM | PERMALINK

Please check out the pages about http://www.melincs.org/ phentermine http://www.worldwide-deals.net/ phentermine http://www.phentermine-today.com/ phentermine http://www.phentermine-pharmacy-deals.com/ phentermine http://www.phentermine-experts.com/ phentermine http://www.phentermine-375-deals.com/ phentermine http://www.phentermine-use.com/ phentermine http://www.online-deals4u.com/ phentermine http://www.worldwide-90.com/ phentermine http://www.phentermine-online-sale.net/ phentermine http://www.phentermine375.net/ phentermine http://www.bestbuys-online.net/ phentermine http://www.bestbuys-online-24x7.net/ phentermine http://www.kmag.biz/ online casino http://www.sydney-harbour.info/ online casino http://www.online-casino-4u.com/ online casino http://www.onlinecasino-4u.com/ online casino http://www.online-casino-555.com/ online casino http://www.worldwide-21.com/ online casino http://www.online-deals21.com/ online casino http://www.bestbuys-win.com/ online casino http://www.onlinecasino777.net/ online casino http://www.online-casino-winner.net/ online casino http://www.hokitika.info/ online poker http://www.online-poker-4u.com/ online poker http://www.onlinepoker-4u.com/ online poker http://www.online-poker-555.com/ online poker http://www.worldwide-em.com/ online poker http://www.online-deals99.com/ online poker http://www.bestbuys-winner.com/ online poker http://www.onlinepoker777.net/ online poker http://www.online-poker-winner.net/ online poker http://www.onlinepokersite.net/ online poker http://www.mrspike.biz/ viagra http://www.viagra-experts.com/ viagra http://www.viagra-100-deals.com/ viagra http://www.viagra-use.com/ viagra http://www.online-top-deals.com/ viagra http://www.worldwide-50.com/ viagra http://www.viagra-online-sales.net/ viagra http://www.viagra24x7.net/ viagra http://www.buyviagra50.net/ viagra http://www.viagrapills100.com/ viagra ...

Posted by: phentermine at August 15, 2004 11:27 AM | PERMALINK